W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions)

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:52:24 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010312084129.05afac50@mail.gorge.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:49 PM 3/12/01 +0100, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>-desired- animation and -undesired- animation

One of the most familiar examples is the "blinking cursor". One event is 
both attraction/distraction. "Stop saying numbers, I'm trying to count over 
here!" or a bunch of other psychophysical "attention" situations.

I'm glad I don't have the action item to try to explain to authors why 
they're discouraged from making their stuff "attractive" simply because 
that very fact might make it unavoidably distracting to certain members of 
the audience.

The problem I have is being able to identify what *might* prove distracting 
(to a "clinical" degree) to some (few?). "I just can't stand it when I see 
the word "obliterate"- it reminds me of genocide."

I hope this isn't a rat-hole. The part about synchronicity-induced seizures 
is one thing but "distractions" - may be beyond testing for and hence 
require some AT solution. There are few formal markup elements that qualify 
so most of this is going to be part of a script of some kind and "crawling 
ants" is but the tip of an iceberg. If we can't objectify the target beyond 
"distracting" I fear we're lost.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 11:53:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT